The title of the article and the content doesn’t reflect what was actually written in the wall street journal that they refers to.
Again Apple using Microsoft to get a sweater deal from Google is completely irrelevant and not a criticism, but used to make the argument Google wouldn’t do that unless they tried to keep out competition.I wouldn't go that far ( 'zero' ) .
"... And as bad, Apple was using Microsoft to “bid up the price” it receives from Google to be the default search engine on the iPhone. “Do you think Google would continue to pay Apple if there was no search competition?” he asked rhetorically. “Why would they do that?” ... "
Satya Nadella Testifies in U.S. v. Google and Admits to AI Search Failure
Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella revealed that he overestimated the impact that OpenAI's ChapGPT-based AI capabilities would have on Bing.www.thurrott.com
Fact is that Apple is profiting to a hefty sum with this arrangement too ; not just Google. Those two swapping money between themselves leaves Microsoft enough 'crumbs' to be used in contexts like this to say there is some competition, but not enough free revenue flow to do much. ( well besides getting innovative and doing 'more' with less capital costs. Like smarter search results as opposed to composed 'fiction writer' results. )
Apple bidding up the price only makes Google work to suck more money out of the system to pay Apple off. Apple claims they are 'big privacy' but take all that money that leverages it. By bidding the price 'sky high' Apple puts Microsoft into a context where they can't really do both ( pay Apple's prices and also pay to make the search result infrastructure significantly better. )
And from your own article
He isn't talking about Apple. He's talking about how Microsoft themselves help put Google in the position they're in, so they can't really bitch that Apple does business with Google.
Aren't they talking about the negative effects of Apple's partnership with Google?
And force EVERY person to select a default browser manually? Where would that stop, then? Phone setup would take hours and be extremely difficult. When your goal is to create an easy-to-use device, this creates harm far greater than the harm claimed by Microsoft. If you have a superior product, users will go and change that setting, as they can today.
Yes, the fairest thing is often not the easiest thing, but there is nothing particularly difficult or time consuming about selecting Google, Bing, Do it Later, etc. from a list of search engines either at phone setup or the first time you launch Safari. If Google is superior then selecting it from the list will be easy.
Nope, they are talking about the negative effects of Google engaging in antitrust practices through exclusivity contracts
And this agreement is targeted as an antitrust violation by Google. Apple is still not accused of any wrongdoing. Microsoft even acknowledged Apple tried to get as much as possible from it. But the problem is Google even entertained such a contract.
It’s not the apple-Google partnership.
“Hello, kettle? This is Microsoft's CEO, Pot. You're black.”
My point is where are the limitations of that argument? Yes, doing it just for Bing isn't hard, but then you can easily extend that to browsers, email clients, video players, audio players, etc. Having an iPhone that has Safari installed by default makes it harder for other browsers. Now you ask people to have to download and install a browser on their own because you don't want to favor one. The same can be said for Mail, Message, Music, etc.
The slippery slope has been proven to be a logical fallacy. There is a big difference between the default search engine and whether Safari should be included with the OS.
